... Democrat Obama dominated among Latino Catholics nationally and in key swing states in 2008. He won roughly three out of four Latino Catholics in New Mexico and Nevada, according to exit polls.

But he narrowly lost white Catholics in the majority of swing states he carried, winning this group in only three battlegrounds with sizable Catholic populations– Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan. In most cases, the "white Catholic vote" was very similar to the "white vote."

Wisconsin's Catholics are — as Gilbert puts it — "overwhelmingly white." In 2008, these white Catholics went for Obama by a 4 point margin. But Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points, so the white Catholic vote is more conservative than the state generally. In 2010, white Catholics voted for Scott Walker by an 8 point margin. So influencing this group can be key to flipping Wisconsin one way or the other.

If I recall that previous thread correctly, I said questions about contraception were an important issue and Americans should expect their political candidates to inform us of their opinions. If I also recall correctly, almost everyone else in the thread defended Romney's dodging of the question and said questions of contraception were irrelevant and should be ignored and that it was silly that I was brining it up.

As it happens, I think even if there might be a short term advantage for Republicans in this election for standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception, that this will eventually backfire on them. I think it will actually backfire on the Republicans even in this election when it becomes clear that people like Santorum and the Catholic Church oppose the very idea of contraception, which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans.

If the Republicans are dumb enough to think they can win elections based on their culture war issues like opposition to the gays and contraception, I guess we can see how that plays out.

It's a religious freedom issue, framing it as a contraceptives issue is WH spin. What's at issue is the state compelling Catholics to go against their conscience or close up shop. It's akin to compelling vegan restaurants to sell steak.

It shouldn't just be Catholics, but anyone concerned about basic civil rights. The Fed'l gov't going to private businesses and telling them what products they have to purchase and give to their employees.

Obama said a while back: "If you like your current plan, you can keep it". As the man from South Carolina said, "You lie".

No, but freedom of reliigion is. The Catholic Church is the largest health care provider in the country. They also provide huge amounts of social services, etc. They serve everybody regardless of religions, ethnicity, etc. When I was a kid in Knoxville, St. Mary's Hospital there was the only non-pubilc hospital that treated blacks.

For this they get attacked by the self-serving, selfish, egocentric feminists and liberals who have no respect for the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Also the Romney jibe is unfair. Romney was addressing a question that is not seriously at issue anywhere: the legality of contraceptives. What's at issue here is compulsion by the state to provide contraceptives as a condition of running any public enterprise. It's a polar opposite issue.

The Catholic Church is the largest health care provider in the country. They also provide huge amounts of social services, etc. They serve everybody regardless of religions, ethnicity, etc. When I was a kid in Knoxville, St. Mary's Hospital there was the only non-pubilc hospital that treated blacks.

But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?

What if Catholics decide they want to stop offering abortions, even if the life of the mother is at stake? Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?

At some point, if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business, then the government is going to say, you actually have to provide health care to people, not just what you think is morally ok. The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.

Agree with Matthew. It's a fairly open secret that a large number of "Catholics" do use some form of birth control, whether that be the pill, prophylactics or whatever. That problem, however, has its roots in bad catechesis; for years, the clergy have been extremely wary of clearly stating the Church's position, trying to keep "butts in the pews," as it were. That does seem to be changing a bit, as the new generation of priests tend much more orthodox and see that Paul VI was frighteningly prescient with Humanae Vitae.

But while the Church does not encourage contraceptives, she knows there are many in her flock who use them. She can do nothing about that except repeat her teaching. But she CANNOT be forced to provide abortifacents - the Obamabots would love you to believe that this is a minority of cranky anti-sex reactionaries, but too many people have seen this for what it is: the naked power of the State demanding violation of conscience and ordering obedience.

As I see it, the WH has two options. Either the SCOAMF can lead from behind, as usual, blaming the diktat on unspecified "aides," and promise repeal, while waiting for a second term to really ram it down throats. Electorally, that would be a wise strategy, since there are a number of Obama fanboys who have broken with him on this issue, but are still ready to fellate him if he withdraws the policy (see Doug Kmiec's nauseatingly groveling 'The Barack Obama I knew would never have asked me to make this choice' open letter).

The second option is to double down on stupid and threaten to take away the Church's tax exempt status. This certainly has the potential to cause some of the more weak-spined bishops to back down, but it would be such a blatant attempt at coercion that I can't imagine anyone except Sibelius, Jarrett and Axelrod cheering it on.

China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached “a new level” following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower.Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Chinese leadership said Thursday the economic co-operation agreements — and billions of dollars in new private-sector deals — signed by the two countries over the past few days are unprecedented and will open the door to additional trade and investment.

Dave says: "It's a religious freedom issue, framing it as a contraceptives issue is WH spin."

I completely agree. I am not a Catholic and this bothers me greatly. I don't know what in my faith this administration will come after but if I don't stand with the Catholics on this than I can not expect them to stand with me when Obama makes a move for something in my faith.

What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?

[This is purely a hypothetical, I'm not saying Catholics believe this about the death of Jesus or that this is a likely policy, but I'm curious if there are any limits we should place on Catholic organizations.]

Because Catholicism is a religion does that mean they can do whatever they want? Can religious groups discriminate based on race?

As I see it, the WH has two options. Either the SCOAMF can lead from behind, as usual, blaming the diktat on unspecified "aides," and promise repeal, while waiting for a second term to really ram it down throats.

From what I understand, GodZero's personal fingerprints are all over this one. Gonna be tough to throw Sibelius or anybody else under that bus on this one.

Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills"A defining moment in Mitt Romney's post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions."

There's world of difference between denial of service to a person and the state demanding that you provide a specific service. Religious freedom does cover the first in terms of church membership alone, but not more broadly in terms of public services. The state demanding you act against your conscience is so obvious a breach of the first amendment that I can't see any honest defense of it that does not reject the right of religious liberty altogether.

CJinPA said, "Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? (The issue, not the pills.)"

This is something everyone should care about. Because it's not about the contraceptives or the Catholic Church. It's about who gets to decide these things- organizations that are affiliated with a religion, or government?

Federal spending as a percent of GDP has risen to about 25 percent, up from the long-term, post-WWII average of 20 percent. Our federal government has become so big that it is entangled in practically everything, inevitably and irresistably using the power of the purse to offer civic organizations the choice of submission or fiscal ruin.

If the Catholic church sells off its hospitals, what will be the effect on overall service?

That's one point I'd want to see studied.

I do think there is an argument to make against the Catholic Hospitals that goes beyond Rusty's appeal to "normalcy".

That is, most middle-sized cities don't need more than a few hospitals. More rural areas might have just one for a very wide region. A well-established Catholic hospital may be the only provider of centralized medical services in a particular location and it is economically unfeasible for a group to found a new hospital just to compete.

What isn't unfeasible is for small specialists to provide services outside of the hospital setting. It works for MRIs. It works for hair replacement and all of dentistry. There's no reason it couldn't work for contraception.

Believe it or not, there is hugely well-known organization that does just that.

The idea of religious liberty doesn't mean that religious groups can do whatever they want. If Catholic hospitals are a public accommodation, that would (rightly) place various restrictions and obligations on them

"But it's a religious choice!" isn't a pass to allow Catholics to do whatever they want.

"If the Catholic church sells off its hospitals, what will be the effect on overall service?"

I believe that the church won't sell them off. It will close and shutter the doors instead, since it cannot in any way be associated with the practice. Signing over the deed to people who will do abortions is just as bad as doing it themselves, if I recall.

Contraception is not the larger issue. The larger issue is central planning and control by fed bureaucrats who have been mostly lifelong govt & non-profit poobahs who know very little about how the real world works.

This church / contraception flashpoint is just evidence of the bigger battle of whether we should have central planning & control.

Obama, Santorum, Gingrich have supported central planning all their lives. Romney would be smart to make hay of that.

"Then the government has to live with losing the Catholic hospitals and charities.

Decisions have consequences."

Have you considering this may be the goal all along? Shutting down the Catholic competition empowers the state and fosters dependence. It's all about more power for the Fed. The Catholic Church and their hospitals are obstacles to the would be tyrants.

But don't use the power of government to deny anyone the free practice of religious beliefs!

Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?

I assume people agree that answer to both of those questions is no. If anyone disagrees, let me know and we can use an absurd examples to show that the answer really must be no.

If so, then what makes contraception so special that it needs to fall into a category regarding special consideration of religious beliefs, when many other things do not?

"Have you considering this may be the goal all along? Shutting down the Catholic competition empowers the state and fosters dependence. It's all about more power for the Fed. The Catholic Church and their hospitals are obstacles to the would be tyrants."

I hadn't thought of that, because I assume the best of people. That is, people with opposing views want the best for the country too, they just disagree about how to get there.

"Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?"

Will you allow the government to conscript Quakers? Should all men be required to sign up for the draft, even those who object on religious grounds?

Or is it just contraception that the government can run roughshod over someone's beliefs for?

Are you referring to their conscience against contraceptives, or their conscience against the government telling them to do anything?

Clearly its about being compelled to "formally cooperate with evil" as the phrase goes. The evil is the contraceptives and abortion producing drugs. The Catholic church recognizes the legitimate authority of government in other issues. I thought that was obvious from context.

Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans?______________

Is contraception the perfect wedge issue for Republicans????

What kind of totally f***ed up question is that?

Wedge issue for Republicans?

It is the damned Democrats and liberals who are and have been seeking to separate and divide, it is the Dems and the liberals who have sought to wedge.

Where the hell have Republicans sought to impose a wedge between anyone?

It is the f***ing Dems who are trying to impose a wedge between Catholics and the Church. It is the f***ing Dems who are trying to separate Democrat Catholics from the Church, to follow Caesar rather than God.

Who the hell puts the question like that and points the finger at Republicans for making wedge issues?

Also, states that allow religious exemption for immunizations for children. That seems a better hill to die on for fighting for government supremacy over religion, because most people understand the health risks associated with not having vaccines.

As long as those stand, I find it hard to believe there is not an exemption for contraception.

"Does this mean that the government can't require anything that would be a violation of someone's religious belief? Does this mean that the government can't prevent anything that is a practice of someone's religious beliefs?"

Will you allow the government to conscript Quakers?

If you think the answers to both of my questions are yes, then say yes. Does anyone else think the answer is yes?

If we all agree that the answer is no, then we can discuss why providing contraception should fall into the category of things that get a special religious exemption or not.

When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question.

"When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question."

It does, unless you can prove a compelling reason to violate that religious liberty. If defense of the country is not a compelling enough reason, then, well -- you've got a pretty big task in front of you.

But they have long held -- here and throughout the world -- that the real enemy is the Catholic Church. Every leftist despot in the world has tried to take down the Church. They have been effective in suppressing the Church in some cases, but it still remains, it still stands, as the Church has withstood countless other persecutions for the last 2000 years, ever since Herod and Nero and other evildoers sought to destroy her.

Hint: The compelling reason you are looking for in your extreme examples (such as, human sacrifice) tend to rely on trampling another person's rights, an area where government intervention is right and proper.

That is not the case in the draft, school vaccines (a corner case, actually, if the disease is communicable), or contraception.

Andy R: "...standing up for the right of organizations to deny women contraception"

No one, including the Catholic Church is denying women contraception. The idea is that the CC does not wish to have to provide contraception to women. It is a distinction with a difference. Further, why in the world contraception is a part of "health insurance" to begin with?

I think the church should rethink its views on contraception as it pertains to homosexuals. Perhaps the church should provide contraception free of charge to homosexuals who continue to infect each other with AIDS, a disease less easy to discard than a fetus and a disease that heaps a great financial burden on the healthcare system.

"... When we are discussing an issue like this, people can't just say "religious liberty!" and think that answers the question..."

Well the Catholics aren't Andy. Opposition to birth control and abortion are pretty much standard Catholic doctrine. It's not something they came up with last week.

If you want to abort your unborn child or get your no cost contraception you need to develop a sound argument why health insurance should cover that to begin with. There is no more justification for insurance to cover those optional services than getting breast implants or a tummy tuck.

The answer is that the government surely (under existing Constitutional doctrine) has the authority to do this. That is not really in dispute. The real question on the table is whether it is wise or just for it to exercise its authority in this way.

1. The ability for the Church to provide charitable services without compromising their religious beliefs,

vs.

2. The ability for women employed by them to get birth control, for free.

Since birth control is not particularly expensive, and there's no real interest in giving people free things other than expedience, most people find that the charitable work is vastly more socially valuable. Obama apparently disagrees, for whatever reasons, as do you. Perhaps you can eluicdate those reasons because I surely do not understand it at all.

Perhaps the church should provide contraception free of charge to homosexuals who continue to infect each other with AIDS, a disease less easy to discard than a fetus and a disease that heaps a great financial burden on the healthcare system.

Obviously, Barack Obama hates gay men and wants them to die of AIDS. He is denying them access to condoms, after all.

In all my years as a Catholic I've never seen the body of the church so united on one issue. There are plenty of people in the church that use some form of contraceptive, I've heard guesses of up to 80%.

But there are almost none that accept the idea that the government can force the church to go against it's foundational teaching on marriage and human sexuality.

When the gay marriage fight was hot a year or so I said then that the next step would be forcing churches to perform gay marriages. It doesn't seem that far fetched now does it?

The church will never, ever submit on this stuff. And what really galls me about it is it's so unnecessary. Birth control pills are generic and we're talking about employees. I read somewhere that Plan B costs $20 at a drug store. The people working at Catholic institutions, even if they use contraception, aren't burdened by having to spend $9 for a 90 day supply of BC at Walmart.

I want to see the Catholic church fire everyone and close the facilities.

Then deny anyone else the use of said facilities.

Something like this is needed now in this election year.

A nice bomb would be, "We regret the Obama administration's position on this religious matter. As we cannot comply due to religious reasons, we will start to let workers go and begin to deactivate the hospitals beginning Monday".

Aside from being a racist, Andy R plays a valuable role here by expressing so well just how the liberal fascists think.

Instructive.

It's good that he is so out front about his willingness to restrict others' freedom.

As others have mentioned above, a primary good questions is: what the heck is any insurance doing paying for this? Why should the general insurance buying public have to subsidize this? What the heck does it have to do with health care? No, it's just more of getting A to pay for something B wants.

Andy R., you're missing the point. The Church is NOT saying that it will not help people who are gay, or practicing satansim. It is not denying help to a class of individuals. This would possibly be protected under the Equal Protection Clause.

Rather, it is resisting the compulsion to provide a particular service or medical treatment that they find morally objectionable.

I consider myself a devout Catholic, and my wife and I have never used artificial contraceptives. It is an important issue to me. I understand that not everyone feels the same way about contraception, and I don't hate those who use it (although I think the practice is detrimental to marriage). But what gives someone else the right to say that those who disagree must be actively complicit in the objectionable behavior?

As others have mentioned above, a primary good questions is: what the heck is any insurance doing paying for this?.."

I'm going to say it again, this is another example of why health insurance is so costly. Sure taken alone, the overall cost of covering BC is small, but its simply one more item that has to be included, underwritten and administered.

When I was sitting in the pews listening to our bishop's letter about the mandate, my first thought was "Welcome to my world, Your Excellency!"

This is about power, pure and simple. The bureaucracies we have allowed our politicians to set up are all about power. They exercise unrestricted power outside the checks and balances that our founders so wisely put in place. Once one of these bureaucrats decides something has to be mandated - boom. It's the law of the land without any debate. They've been lording it over small businesses, medicine, public education, finance, and manufacturing for years. This is the first time they have branched out to something that the general public actually cares about - religious liberty.

Anyone who cares about the principles on which this country was founded should stand against this mandate. You can be certain if this stands, there will be more mandates taking away more fundamental liberties in the future. The right

Trad Guy - Do you wake up every morning just to get Rush Limbaughs latest talking points to parrot?? We get it. Rush says Romney is squishy and a "flip-flopper" no Pure conservative, while Saint Santorum pushes all the right buttons on "religious right cultural warrior" issues Rush cares about (while being a huge earmarker and Big Gummint tax and spender that Rush has no real problem with).

You do realize that Limbaugh, the moronic Hannity, Michael Savage, etc,, are just Entertainers and Performers...not Wise Men?? That each will get far more millions if a "colorful conservative" loses huge to Obama, and they can moan for another 4 years to big ratings that Obama continues to destroy the country??They WANT another Goldwater Debacle.

Shite: "I want to see the Catholic church fire everyone and close the facilities."

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think this would be the best thing for everyone (which is why the Church wouldn't do it).

Maybe people don't realize that the Church will close down its hospitals before complying with this mandate. They most absolutely will. I think the government is actually trying to force the Church to divest itself of these hospitals and get out of the health care industry.

"Nearly half (49%) of Americans say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Forty-six percent say they should not have to provide this type of coverage."

Another way to say that is "more than half (51%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should NOT be required." But, you know. Details.

"A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception... Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it."

So, it sounds like it is pretty close... so, why does the graph show 58% to 37%?

"Like other religious groups, a strong majority of all Catholics (59%), Catholic voters (68%), and white Catholics (72%) say that churches and other places of worship should not be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception."

Andy R. said...By the way, it's good to see polling data that Catholics agree with the President.

HI Dum-dum.

Have you ever heard of PRRI?

Of course not. But it was fun to review their methodology:

Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviewsConducted between February 1, 2012 and February 5, 2012by professional interviewers underThe direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Interviews were conducted amongA random sample of 1,009 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States(304 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone).

But don't you see the danger in saying that Catholics can use their religious beliefs to dictate who they choose to serve or what services they provide?

No. Don't you see the danger and infringement on rights of forcing a religion to do the bidding of the state?

Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?

Guess what, dumb ass. Obama's saying if the Catholic church only hired and served Catholics, he wouldn't insist on forcing them to do his bidding. Just what you're afraid of. But, the Catholic church is bigger than that, they want to help everyone. They view everyone as God's children and deserving of his mercy. They can actually see past the end of the bill of their cap. Did yoo know the Catholic church teaches everyone can go to Heaven, regardless of religion or lack of it?

Forcing the Catholic church to perform actions outside of thier religion. Actions, some of which are considered cardinal sins, sins that will send you to Hell if you die with them on your soul.

You've really shown you ignorance and lack of respect for the rights of others. Rights that people sailed from Europe to this continent in tiny boats to enjoy. Rights that people fought and died for. And, you want to toss all that out the window because the "rights" of women are so great, greater than any other rights, that they can't be expected to drive down the street to Planned Parenthood, another hospital, or doctor to get the service they want.

You know it occured to me that the liberals and their preferred political party seem to use 'the children' as their rallying cry quite a bit also simultaneously support any method that prevents or destroys bringing more children into the world.

And frankly, who are these people calling themselves "Catholic?" It's not like we have some identifying tattoo. You can stay away from church all year, only go for your Easter and Christmas duties and still call yourself Catholic. What is the percentage of regular churchgoers who approve or disapprove of the policy? It seems to me they would be more useful in judging resistance than the average Joe.

"At some point, if the Catholic Church wants to be such a strong player in the health care business, then the government is going to say, you actually have to provide health care to people, not just what you think is morally ok. The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America."

The incompetent hat mannequin is, not surprising, woefully ignorant on this subject.

TMink said...Isn't Wisconsin overwhelmingly white? If so, it would make sense that most subgroups are overwhelmingly white.======================The difference of course being that the liberals, gays, and progressive Jews in charge of the media would make short work of the career of a copy writer or "face" that described the election of a black mayor or Obama sweeping a deacyed city's vote as "Predictable, given the overwhelming black vote".

Same with descriptions of "overwhelmingly black" rallies for Obama or the "overwhelming black crime problem Philly and Chicago have". Bye-bye job!

But the same media masters are pushing the narrative if "overwhelmingly white" Tea Party rallies, firefighters being "overwhelmingly white"..in a negative context.

"You've really shown you ignorance and lack of respect for the rights of others. Rights that people sailed from Europe to this continent in tiny boats to enjoy. Rights that people fought and died for. And, you want to toss all that out the window because the "rights" of women are so great, greater than any other rights, that they can't be expected to drive down the street to Planned Parenthood, another hospital, or doctor to get the service they want."

Some people wear hats to block their vision heavenwards and others can't see the nose in front of their face.

To qualify this comment as "on topic," I offer that there is a clear bright line distinction between condoning contraception and forcing others to pay for it. But we've already been over that haven't we? It's settled science.

I don't see this as helping Obama at all, even with those who approve of mandating birth control. The few who might think this to be good policy will be swamped by those who feel strongly that the Catholic Church is right here - maybe not in their stand on contraception, but rather on their standing up for their consciences.

Which is why I expect that the Dems will find a way to flip flop here, while claiming to be holding steady. Currently, the Senate Dems, even Catholics up for reelection and/or those up for reelection in states that have sizable Catholic populations are being pressured to toe the line. And, most seem to. But, it is further endangering the Dems chances at holding the Senate, and retaking the House. And, this is important, even if it is not enough to lose the election for Obama, himself.

So, with my prediction of an artful flip-flop by the Administration here, it should be quite interesting seeing how they accomplish this, and how critically their supporters in the media try to spin it.

It's not like we have some identifying tattoo. You can stay away from church all year, only go for your Easter and Christmas duties and still call yourself Catholic. What is the percentage of regular churchgoers who approve or disapprove of the policy?

So, now we're going to have to meet your arbitrary definition of what it takes to be a member of a religion? Miss church one too many times and we're out. You have no understanding of our rights or don't care about them. We're not put on the this Earth to be slaves of the state, slaves of feminsts, or anyone or anything else. Ever heard of freedom?

Of course, this is the typical trap liberals and the federal government set. Create a system where they control any part of it, money, licensing, accreditation, inspection. At first, it's all OK. Then they start imposing their rules on you more and more. It's called Totalitarianism.

And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it??

Did the Catholic church pay for the Iraq war?

Anyway, doesn't this highlight the problem with the structure of this law, using mandates on companies and individuals on how they/we must spend our own money vs. a tax that gets collected and then spent by the government?

"And weren't Catholics opposed to the Iraq war? Why did they have to pay for it?"

Catholics are not opposed to war per se. Members of religions that are do not have to fight in combat. Seventh Day Adventists were drafted during Vietnam, but did not have to fight. Many serve heroically as medics.

And, yes, you are, once again, proving your own stupidity, ignorance, and lack of respect for religous rights.

Garage, I don't think the issue here is so much that the individual Catholics don't want to pay for the objectionable treatment, but that the Catholic institutions will be forced to subsidize/perform it. This is not simply an individual of one taxpayer objecting to what his money pays for--it's bigger than that.

Get this socialist diversity hire out of office before the damage is permanent.

Hell, I'll even vote for Ron Paul if he turns out to be the nom.

=================Wrong to argue to an echo-chamber of true believing conservatives that the American People could want anyone other than a litmus test pure conservative. But the problem is most Americans are not litmus test pure conservatives nor are they in a mood to be "educated why Palin is right!" Anymore than they are in the mood to be "educated why the union bosses and Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer are right!".

People in the middle are in no mood for a Right to Lifer, Big Government must enforce Religious Right morality Theocrat dumped by his own electorate in Pennsyvania by 18 points. Or an unstable, sleazy, Inside the Beltway cotton-head blowhard.

Right now, other than Romney, Ron Paul is looking pretty attractive other than his 8 or 9 whacky ideas. And even in foreign policy where his Isolationism and Open Borders libertarian ideology makes no sense - Ron Paul is still making more sense than Romney on some matters. Like on the matter of borrowing from CHina for spending more for a bigger military with excellent new Neocon nation-building adventures a-waiting....And the Romney pledge that the next 10 years (if necessary) in war in Afghanistan to "help the noble Afghanis" will be better than the 1st 10 years.

For fuck's sake, DADvocate, chill. My comment about 'calling yourself Catholic' was directed at Hat's quoting the poll linked to by Andrew Sullivan, which he took to mean a majority of Catholics agreed with Obama's diktat.

I'm not trying to set up an "arbitrary decision." I'm saying that, since anyone can CALL themselves "Catholic," Sully's poll is useless because it doesn't break down the percentages of those who are regular churchgoers and those whose attendance is spotty.

In other words, who are the "Catholics" who approve, and how faithful are they to Church teaching? It would be good to know.

The government has decided that denying women contraception is not allowed in 2012 in America.

The Catholic church isn't saying that, although I suspect they might support such legislation. The Catholic churhc is saying, "We shouldn't be forced to provide women (or men) contraception or to perform abortions."

National Catholic Reporter:The 620 Catholic hospitals across the country make up 12.4 percent of the nation’s 5,010 community hospitals.

They provide 15 percent of the hospital beds and in 2008 accounted for more than 5.6 million -- 15.8 percent -- of the 35.8 million patients admitted to those hospitals that year.

In addition to inpatient hospital stays, Catholic hospitals handled more than 98 million outpatient visits, 15.7 percent of the national total.

They employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers.

I say close 'em down if Obama doesn't back off. He can add that to his list of successes.

We're talking past each other, DADvocate. Perhaps I should have said anyone can call themselves a "faithful" Catholic, even if they use contraception. They're not, but they can CALL themselves one.

I think that a poll of "Catholics" who pick and choose among Church teaching and a poll of "Catholics" faithful to the Magisterium would result in differing numbers - that's all I'm trying to say, and why I think Hat's crowing at 12.07 is wrong.

I still remember the big role Sanctimonious Santorum had in the Terri Schiavo Fiasco.

Personal grandstanding.

His famous ditching Walmart execs and the Walmart jet to go on a sidetrip visit to the Florida hospice and rally with the RTLrs. Openly calling the court order "murder", the husband a person who wants to kill his wife. He then filed a Congressional subpeona ordering the Judge, doctors, and Terri Schiavi's husk to go to DC to testify before the feeding tube could be removed..(doctors testified, Judge refused Santorum's subpeona, and "Terri" was sort of unavailable....)

In his losing race against Casey, 1/3rd of Pennsylvania voters said that the Terri Schiavo Fiasco made them "less likely to vote for Santorum". In a televised group of swing voters, the Schiavo business was brought up with the interviewer asking if they thought Santorum was a Theocrat. One voter not understanding the term disagreed - calling Santorum a religious nut out to jam his beliefs down voters throats.

You have to go to mass each Sunday (reception of communion only needs to occur once per year) and on Holy days of obligation and confess once year to be a "practical" Catholic. Anything less and you're in need of reconciliation.

Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t. “It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.

“When I left the Oval Office, where I was very grateful for his invitation to be there, I left with high hopes. That nothing his administration would do would impede the good work that he admitted and acknowledged in the church,” Dolan said. “And I’m afraid I don’t have those sentiments of hope now.”

I understand you Christopher. The Pew study showed clearly that among self identified Catholics the frequency of attendance at mass was correlated to Orthodoxy. Hardly surprising that there's a big difference between the casual attitude of many Christmas/Easter Catholics and that of daily communicants.

I wonder if it just eats the Hatted Bigot alive to know that he has a Christian name? that his name, Andrew, comes from the Apostle, who was also brother of (Simon) Peter, the first pope of his hated Catholic Church? and who was later crucified for his faith in Christ?

The DoD actively prevented Catholic chaplains from discussing a letter to their congregations

That is an incomplete description. What fully happened was that the Obama Defense Department prohibited priests from reading a letter from the Archbishop for the Military Archdiocese during Mass. That is, the government directly interfered with what was said and done during Mass, the government made itself dictator of what is and is not acceptable worship.

Nicely stated Bender. Reminds me that the word Catholic originates from "kata" and "hola". Kata meaning offered to or more strictly laid before and hola for "all" or everyone. So come on in everybody's welcomed.

You're right. It means that the state can't tell them what to do or say. And in this case, the state is telling them what to do.

They're probably also required to offer prenatal and obstetric care. I wonder how they handle that charge for women who are celibate. Think they negotiate the terms of their policy based on utilization patterns?

It was only one month ago that Mitt Romney was puzzled that the topic of contraception was even being raised.

From the comments:

… almost everyone else in the thread defended Romney's dodging of the question and said questions of contraception were irrelevant and should be ignored and that it was silly that I was bringing it up.

I wonder, now that the issue has the potential to be damaging to Obama, if anyone from the liberal MSM will continue to ask contraception-related questions of the GOP candidates. My guess is no.

Do most Catholics still care about contraceptives? … I have big, Catholic family and none of this ever comes up.

Just a thought: Perhaps the reason the issue has not been discussed in this big Catholic family is because no other POTUS has ever tried to force the Catholic church to provide contraceptives.

If the issue does not matter to Catholic families then Obama can safely ignore the issue. Right? Anyone want to bet that Obama will not back down on this?

What if Catholics decide they want to stop offering abortions, even if the life of the mother is at stake? Of if they want to stop offering services to practicing Satanists? Or to offer STD treatment for unrepentant homosexuals who plan on returning to gay sex as soon as they are cured?

and

What is Catholic organizations said they didn't want to offer medical services to Jews because Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? Would that be ok?

Well, what if President Obama turns out to be an advanced scout from the planet Sqzlflyd, to set the stage for invasion?

This is an issue that goes beyond just the Catholic church, or religious institutions. The first amendment was considered by the left to be sacred, inviolate, never to be breached for any reason (all while the other amendments were purely optional, depending on whose ox was gored).

Now the left is eager to tear down that firewall--and for what? One more benefit in a health insurance plan? Really, they are willing to punch holes in the first amendment to save a few bucks? Once you decide that religious liberty really isn't important, where do freedom of speech or the press go? (Hmmm, what have they done recently to put freedom of assembly or "peacefully" petitioning government in disfavor?)

I ask myself: are they really too blind to see what they are doing, or is widespread destruction of liberty the actual intent?

By now Obama has learned that he can do whatever the hell he wants and no is going to do anything about it. Oh sure, Boehner whispered something about getting around to maybe doing something, but he made it clear -- "The House will approach this matter fairly and deliberately, through regular order and the appropriate legislative channels. Because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the Energy & Commerce Committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. Chairman Upton convened a hearing last year and began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. I welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand, and will not stand."

So, Boehner's going to take his time, not be in any rush. They've had a year to do something about it, but haven't, and they'll spend another year putzing around.

Sure, he then says, "it must not stand, and will not stand," but what is left unsaid is, "unless Obama vetos it, in which case we'll say, 'well, we tried,' and then we'll move on to other stuff that merely perpetuates Obama's policies -- such as Republicans voting again to continue to fund HHS -- rather than actually trying to stop him on anything."

Why should Obama back down? Where has he backed down from any of the despotic acts he's done?

He might -- might -- defer and demur for a bit, until after the election, but the main objective is clear. The main objective of leftists everywhere has been to try to destroy the Catholic Church. He may hate the rich, but the Church is the real enemy.

It seems the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wants to remove the provision for birth control coverage from the health care law altogether and not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. At least according to Anthony Picarello, general council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“(A year's extension to the implementation of the provision) was no consolation to Catholic leaders. The White House is ‘all talk, no action’ on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. ‘There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,’ Picarello said. ‘We're not going to do anything until this is fixed.’

That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for ‘good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this.’

‘If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate,’ Picarello said.”

One wonders if, as is the case in Baaston, the Archdiocese is so in the hip pocket of the machine in Chi-Town that GodZero thought the Church nationwide would just roll over and take it?

The Church has supported many left wing issues, even though they knew the overall goals of the left. Reminds me of two things, "If you dance with the Devil, you're going to get burnt." And, Aesop's fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.

First, Churches pay taxes on property, depending on how its used. It's true we save here, because we often have some very nice properties that would otherwise face steep property taxes. But we do pay some--the house I live in is taxed, but the offices and church are not.

FWIW, the Knights of St. John and Knights of Columbus--two Catholic non-profits here--pay property taxes like anyone else.

Second, we pay payroll taxes and all other employment taxes any other employer pays. Our employees pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Third, we pay any number of other taxes, fees, tariffs built into the things everyone else buys.

No, we aren't subject to corporate income tax; but even if we were, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up paying nothing, or near enough.

Because I think you have to have profits!

(Just had an idea: some wonky individual could actually calculate the amount of corporate tax that might be due from, say, an diocese--it might be eye-opening.)

We do get exempt from sales tax, but in practice we end up paying a fair amount, because it's a pain to claim the exemption at the cash register.

Clergy--if they do not take a vow of poverty, pay all the same taxes as anyone else. Because we seldom own our own homes, we miss out on the huge mortgage deduction. Not complaining, but I think we pay our share.

To avoid those taxes, you have to take a vow of poverty, and that means you get no pay check.

Finally, all our 70-million Catholics pay their fair share of taxes like anyone else. The "corporation," is a shell; to recall the story of St. Lawrence...

He was told by the pagan Romans to produce the "riches of the church"; and he showed up with the faithful behind him.

Understand also that the covered employee, i.e. the individual policyholder, does not have the right to refuse contraception coverage. And since family members are required to be included in these employee plans, and since places like Planned Parenthood are all to eager to hand out contraceptives to minors, you can easily have the situation of an employee-parent being forced to pay (as part of the employee contribution) for their little 12-year-old girl to get the Pill.

Are you all happy with that? Do you think that parents should have no say in the matter and should be forced to pay for it?

Yes. That an attempt will be made to change the policy to something more palatable to voters and to something that can be better defended by the Progressives. But I don’t think it will work. I think that no matter what Obama does now that the issue has blown up in his face Obama will lose votes because of this issue. There’s no one he can throw under the bus to get out of this

I think it will actually backfire on the Republicans even in this election when it becomes clear that people like Santorum and the Catholic Church oppose the very idea of contraception, which is wildly in opposition to the views of normal non-insane Americans.

With this I have to agree with Andy R, it is insane in 2011 to be opposed to contraceptives. What are you people stuck in the Victorian Age?

Do these hospitals and universities receive other federal money in the form of grants or other subsidies?

I’m going to guess that yes they do. But I don’t get the point of the question. Is the commentor implying that since these institutions receive federal funds that they shouldn’t object to being forced to provide contraceptives?

About receiving federal--or, for that matter, state or local tax money...

It depends.

Lots of Catholic organizations have contracts with the government to perform useful things for the government. That counts as "receiving" tax money, but it's not a subsidy; it's a contract. If I take a job teaching history at a public high school, my paycheck isn't a subsidy, but it is tax money--until its my wages.

Colleges end up receiving money via loans and grants, but it's the kids who actually receive them, then bring them to the school. The "gift" is to the student. Yet the government does attach strings to the acceptance of the money by the colleges.

Our parochial schools receive funds from the state, for the provision of "secular" services that benefit the students themselves. The dollars follow the students. Call that what you will. It's true it helps our budget, but it is also true we're providing a very good deal for the taxpayer. Somewhat side issue, but...there is no question that our school's existence saves the taxpayer very large amounts. Because if we closed tomorrow, all our kids report to the public schools. Who thinks the public schools have large, unspent sums, held in escrow against said event?

Our churches themselves receive no tax money.

There may be other aspects to this I'm not thinking of; that's off-the-cuff, obviously.

"I’m going to guess that yes they do. But I don’t get the point of the question. Is the commentor implying that since these institutions receive federal funds that they shouldn’t object to being forced to provide contraceptives?"

grackle,

If these institutions are receiving federal money, should they not have to comply with federal laws? I think they should.

How about the employees at these institutions who are not Catholic? Don't they deserve equal treatment under the law?

My guess is George asked that puzzling question because the administration thought they'd get secular women swing voters back to vote for O if they brought up the bogeyman that Reps are against contraception. They figured uninformed swing voters wouldn't know the difference between the banning ofcontraception and the denial of "free" contraception.

My guess is George asked that puzzling question because the administration thought they'd get secular women swing voters back to vote for O if they brought up the bogeyman that Reps are against contraception. They figured uninformed swing voters wouldn't know the difference between the banning ofcontraception and the denial of "free" contraception.

You know, I like beer, I like martinis, I like wine. My religion says it's OK to a point. When my fellow Christians make a doctrine of not drinking, I think they're on thin ice theologically and biblically. And I don't know what the basis of anyone else's objection is, but obviously, I don't share it.

So...based on President Obama's logic, echoed by others here, I have absolutely no justification for objecting, if he decides said teetotalers must pay to provide hooch to their employees, because everyone has a constitutional right to free hooch.

The power-grabbing government types always think that way, as well. They always want to use any contact with any money they can non-laughably call government money to trigger any number of mandates. Most natural thing in the world.

So, yes, that's the climate we live in.

But how about this?

Every dollar I ever earn, I get to write my name on it. And from that point on, anyone who ever accepts that dollar, has to do what I say. Destroying that dollar--or erasing my name--is illegal.

Is that a deal? You want to live in that world?

Instead, I'd say if the government gives money, it gives it for something; either it buys something, or it gives a "gift" with strings: "We'll pay you $100 million dollars a year if you'll stamp "Obama 2012" on these condoms."

But that's the conclusion of the contract.

However, when the government gives you money, and you bring your money to me for some reason, the government's strings attach to you; not me.

(Of course, all this is what we small-government types have been on about for decades, if not centuries.)

Well, as I said I'm mostly thinking about those employees at these institutions who are not Catholic. I believe they deserve equal treatment under the law.

It seems we would be blurring the line between the separation of church and state if the government carves out religious exceptions for laws based on religious beliefs, especially if that exception affects a large number of people who do not belong to the religion in question.

Also, it’s interesting that this issue wasn’t such a controversy back in 2001 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

What's really interesting is this follows in the DC abortion debate, I always wondered how those who live in DC managed to get abortions even tho DC wasn't mandated to perform them? It's amazing that the citizens of DC survived these decades w/o the order of the government. Just like 36, how in the world did those employed by Catholic entities ever survive w/o that option?

The issue is not about complying with the law--if it was enacted, the Catholic institutions would comply with the law (by closing up shop). The issue is whether the law is the merits of the law: is it constitutional. reasonable, dangerous, etc.

As Chesterton said, fortunately those of us who don't believe in birth control will soon outnumber those who do. The Church is wiser than all the scoffing enlightened people who have predicted her end. Large families have a governance all their own and are thus a threat to both tyrants and libertines. http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

Every organization (in this case, the hospital, insurance provider, etc.) is guided by its own set of principles guiding what it will and will not do. For Catholic institutions, their principles align with Catholic teaching. The fact that they hire non-Catholic employees does not change the fact that they follow Catholic principles.